[1] Ms Angele Chandler has lodged an appeal, for which permission to appeal is required, against a decision issued by Commissioner Lee on 13 August 2020 (decision). 1 In the decision, the Commissioner determined that Ms Chandler’s dismissal by the respondent, Bed Bath N’ Table (BBNT), was unfair. In the assessment of remedy, the Commissioner concluded that reinstatement was inappropriate in the circumstances and issued directions for the filing of material addressing the question of compensation.

[2] Ms Chandler contends that the Commissioner erred in finding that reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy. Ms Chandler submits that the decision manifests an injustice and says that it is in the public interest to grant permission to appeal.

[3] On the basis of our view that Ms Chandler’s application for permission to appeal may be adequately determined on the basis of written submissions, and with the consent of the parties, the appeal has been conducted without holding a hearing pursuant to s 607(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act).

[4] For the reasons that follow, we decline to grant permission to appeal.

Background

[5] Ms Chandler commenced employment as a casual employee of BBNT on 25 June 2018 and worked her last shift on 28 February 2019. Until about January 2019, Ms Chandler performed approximately 20 to 25 hours of work per week at BBNT’s Essendon store as a sales assistant. It is not in contest that BBNT subsequently reduced Ms Chandler’s working hours to one shift per week in January 2019.

[6] Ms Chandler’s employment was terminated on 1 March 2019 for misconduct for (1) failing to comply with BBNT’s policy with respect to notification of absences, (2) engaging in disrespectful, insubordinate and intimidating conduct during a meeting on 26 February 2019 with the Regional Manager, Ms Katirena Faill, and (3) sending an email to Ms Faill on 27 February 2019, which is said to constitute a continuation of Ms Chandler’s disrespectful conduct during the meeting of the previous day.

[7] On 4 March 2019, Ms Chandler made an application to the Commission pursuant to s 394 of the FW Act for an unfair dismissal remedy. BBNT objected to the application on the basis that Ms Chandler was not a person protected from unfair dismissal. BBNT contended that Ms Chandler was not regularly and systematically employed and had no reasonable expectation of continuing employment as a casual employee.

[8] A decision upholding BBNT’s jurisdictional objection 2 was quashed by a Full Bench on 23 January 2020.3 Upon redetermination of the question of whether Ms Chandler is a person protected from unfair dismissal, the Full Bench concluded that (1) Ms Chandler’s employment as a casual…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Angele Chandler v Bed Bath N' Table

Details

AGLC: Angele Chandler v Bed Bath N' Table [2020] FWCFB 6714
Case: [2020] FWCFB 6714
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Angele Chandler v Bed Bath N' Table was heard as an appeal against the decision rendered by Commissioner Lee at Melbourne on 13 August 2020. The dispute arose from an application by Angele Chandler for unfair dismissal and related claims against her former employer, Bed Bath N' Table. Chandler contended that her dismissal was unjust, and the employer argued that the dismissal was for valid reasons related to her performance and conduct.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and if there was a valid reason related to Chandler's performance or capability. The court also had to consider if the employer followed a fair procedure when terminating Chandler's employment. The appeal focused on the weight given to certain evidence and the interpretation of the Fair Work Act provisions concerning unfair dismissal.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the fairness of the dismissal and the employer's justification for it. The court found that the employer did not adequately demonstrate a valid reason for dismissal, nor did they follow a fair process. The court concluded that the dismissal was unjust and upheld the appeal, reinstating Chandler's claim for unfair dismissal. The employer was directed to pay compensation and costs as determined by the Fair Work Commission.

The court ordered that Bed Bath N' Table pay Chandler compensation for the unfair dismissal, as determined by the Fair Work Commission. Additionally, the employer was directed to pay costs associated with the appeal. This decision highlighted the importance of employers ensuring valid reasons and fair procedures when dismissing employees, to avoid similar outcomes in future disputes.

Orders